Canadian Court Overturns... Parent's Grounding of Child for Posting "Inappropriate" Pictures of Herself the Internet

The dad wouldn't allow her on a school trip after she repeatedly went to chat sites he had blocked her from using. And posted "inappropriate" pictures of herself.

Seems reasonable.

But a Canadian court reversed his decision:

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer.

The father's lawyer Kim Beaudoin said the disciplinary measures were for the girl's "own protection" and is appealing the ruling.

"She's a child," Beaudoin told AFP. "At her age, children test their limits and it's up to their parents to set boundaries."

...

According to court documents, the girl's Internet transgression was just the latest in a string of broken house rules. Even so, Justice Suzanne Tessier found her punishment too severe.

"Now, if she had been posting excerpts from Mark Steyn's America Alone, I might have authorized involuntary psychiatric hospitalization," the judge allowed.

I made that last part up, but it's pretty much true.

Jesus. Candad's gone. It's gone, MacReady.

Now, this little whore was obviously chatting sexually with men (or at least boys) and posting sexualized pictures of herself. The dad tried to stop her; she wouldn't.

A judge stepped in to basically protect her fundamental right to be sexually violated by an adult.

I think child molesters get the message that Canada is "cool" with their lifestyle choices.

Ah: Maetenloch provides some crucial background:

The parents have been embroiled in a custody suit for years, and it appears the mother prompted the daughter to file the suit against her father.

After the ruling the father declined to take custody of the daughter back, saying he no longer had any control over her.

Longer Piece: with more on the Kramer-vs.-Kramer wrangling.

Fact is, the school's policy required permission from both parents. The father refused his, citing her consistently sneaking on to the internet against his wishes. The court claims the "context" is "complex," but the court stepped in and signed the permission slip on the father's behalf, basically.

Because a school trip was a "once in a lifetime" "rite of passage" and so was "exceptional."

She just graduated from elementary school.

&bodytext=The dad wouldn't allow her on a school trip after she repeatedly went to chat sites he had blocked her from using. And posted "inappropriate" pictures of herself. Seems reasonable. But a Canadian court reversed his decision: The girl had...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 06:15 PM

| Access Comments